alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

Action brought 11 August 2006 — Nolin v Commission

(Case F-91/06)

(2006/C 237/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Michel Nolin (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant claims that the defendant erred in law, in as far as some essential tasks and points relating to his work were not mentioned by the assessor and no comments on those tasks are made in his CPR. That situation is due to serious inconsistencies and inadequacies comparable to manifest errors of fact in the consideration of the factors relevant to his assessment.

Furthermore, the applicant considers that, despite the two changes made by the assessor in his comments as compared with the 2003 reference exercise, the applicant's report from the previous year was repeated, in breach of Article 5 of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, whilst significant changes in the applicant's functions had taken place and the repetition of the previous year's report had taken place without the applicant's consent.

----
p.1 

OAR Box 1252 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

29) IV-F-11 

Docket Number: 

A-90-22 

Printed 5/21/2008 11:46:01 AM Sheet 29 of 184 
P.2 

A-90-22 

IV-F-11 

Remarks of V. Alexander, Enviro-Medicine Associates, 

before the Environmental Protection Agency on the 

Proposed Hazardous Organic NESHAP for the SOCMI 

Industry public hearing held in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 

March 18, 1993. This item is identical to Docket 

No. A-90-19, Item No. IV-F-11. 

I? r r- .: 3 

APR 2 ?. IcJ
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40365 Conference Calendar

VICTOR MICHAEL MACIAS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus N. L. CONNER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:01-CV-51

-------------------- October 29, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Victor Michael Macias, federal prisoner # 63420-080, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, asserting that he is actually innocent of the crime to which he pleaded guilty and that the indictment was invalid. As the district court determined, because Macias’ petition challenges his conviction and sentence, it is really a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000); Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000)

.No. 02-40365 -2- Although Macias could proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if he demonstrated that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief was inadequate or ineffective, Macias has made no such showing. He does not argue that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate in his appellate brief, and he has therefore abandoned the argument. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). For the first time in his reply brief, Macias conclusionally argues that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is ineffective, but this court will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See United States v. Prince , 868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir. 1989). Even if the court were to consider the argument, Macias offers no reason why 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief is inadequate in his case and has thus failed to make the required showing. Macias has not demonstrated any error in the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
|                                    | State      or other jurisdiction of |
|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| Name                                    | Incorporation or    Organization    |
|                                    |                                |
| Innovex      Precision Components, Inc. | Minnesota                           |
|                                    |                                |
| Innovex      Southwest, Inc.            | Delaware                            |
|                                    |                                |
| ADFlex      Cayman Ltd.                 | Cayman      Island                  |
|                                    |                                |
| Innovex      (Thailand) Ltd.            | Thailand                            |
|                                    |                                |
| ADFlex      Solutions Ltd.              | Delaware                            |
|                                    |                                |
| ADFlex      Mexico S.A. de C.V.         | Mexico                              |
|                                    |                                |
| Iconovex      Corporation               | Minnesota                           |
|                                    |                                |
| Innovex      Limited                    | Minnesota                           |
|                                    |                                |
| Mar      Engineering, Inc.              | Minnesota                           |
|                                    |                                |
|                                    |                                |
PMN Substance in Class B Fire-fighting Formulations Production 

55 gallon container of 28%

PMN substance. 

Pump PMN substance into 

10,000 gallon mix tank. 

Container for PMN substance 

is thoroughly rinsed with 

water/solvent mixture to the 

mix tank. Some customers reuse/recycle the original 

container. 

5, 55 or 275 gallon foam 

formulation containers 

with up to 5 wt% PMN 

substance. 

10,000 gallon foam 

formulation mixer to mix 

AFFF components and 

PMN substance

Release Point 1 – from cleanout of PMN substance 

containers (2 kg/batch if not 

recycled). 

Release Point 2 – Clean-out of 

formulation mixer (2 kg/batch). 

Up to 2000 kg of 

PMN substance per 

batch of foam 

formulation 

Worker Activity A – Addition of 

PMN substance to 10,000 gallon 

mixing tank 

Worker Activity B – Cleanout of PMN substance 

container. 

Worker Activity C – Cleanout of mixing tank
January 6, 2014 

Mr. Kevin Adams 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE · 

Washington DC 20590 

Re: Request for Comment at Waterloo 

Dear Mr. Adams: 

~\\- Ol7;)_ 

This letter is in response to your correspondence dated December 3, 2013, requesting comment on 

American Airlines Essential Air Service (EAS) application to serve Waterloo. 

We strongly support American's proposal to serve Waterloo and the greater Cedar Valley area. With 

American's recently approved merger with US Airways, we look forward to the additional connectivity that 

will be generated by the new airline combination. 

Since American has started serving Waterloo in 2011, Waterloo's air fares have become more 

competitive with other regional airports and ridership has slowly improved. Proof of these improved 

results is the fact that American's EAS subsidy proposal dropped by almost 40% versus their 2011 

proposal. We believe that this is indicative of good things ahead. 

With a population base of approximately 200,000 people {30 miles), Waterloo can easily support more 

than the current 2 times daily regional jet service. We look forward to long, mutually prosperous 

relationship with American Airlines. 

Cordially, 

Steve Wareham 

Acting Waterloo Regional Airport Director 

• .. f .. f ) (
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Each of the undersigned Officers of Oglebay Norton Company (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge:

 

The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Companyfor the period ending December 31, 2002 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and****

 

The information contained in the Annual Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.****

 

Dated: February 28, 2003
Before the Third Division,

February 16, 1949

No. 52883.

#### Browne Vintners Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 104711-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial in Los Angeles, the judge hearing the case on circuit dismissed the protest as untimely. The court found no error in that ruling and the protest was therefore dismissed.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2025 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2024-01	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 11/29/23
Case 2:05-cv-05523-JP Document 13 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:05-cv-05523-JP Document 13 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

                    By Notice dated November 21, 2006, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 1, 2006, (71 FR 69590), Notice of Application, Hospira, Inc., 1776 North Centennial Drive, McPherson, Kansas 67460-1247, paragraph three should be corrected to read as follows: The company plans to import Remifentanil for use in dosage form manufacturing.                 

Dated: January 5, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

 [FR Doc. E7-309 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
# sec5_sf133_sch_p_2019

DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No.&S&KFF0000 2018-05&S&U&K0000FF 2018-XX	&"Arial,Bold"&9 DRAFT V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 7-12-18
# C_2019072EN.01002201.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Groupe Canal + v Commission

(Case T-873/16) (1)

((Competition - Cartels - TV distribution - Decision making commitments binding - Territorial exclusivity - Preliminary evaluation - Assignment of third-party contractual rights - Proportionality))

(2019/C 72/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Groupe Canal + (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, P. Gassenbach and O. de Juvigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, C. Urraca Caviedes and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by D. Colas, J. Bousin, E. de Moustier and P. Dodeller, acting as Agents); Union des producteurs de cinéma (UPC) (Paris, France) (represented by: É. Lauvaux, lawyer); C More Entertainment AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: L. Johansson and A. Acedevo, lawyers); and European Film Agency Directors — EFADs (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Sasserath, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Fratini, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 26 July 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case AT. 40023 — Cross-border access to pay TV), which makes the commitments offered by Paramount Pictures International Ltd and Viacom Inc. legally binding, in the context of licence agreements on audiovisual content that they concluded with Sky UK Ltd and Sky plc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Groupe Canal + to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, excluding those incurred in relation to the intervention of the French Republic, the European Film Agency Directors — EFADs, the Union des producteurs de cinéma (UPC) and C More Entertainment AB, and by the Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Groupe Canal + to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, excluding those incurred in relation to the intervention of the French Republic, the European Film Agency Directors — EFADs, the Union des producteurs de cinéma (UPC) and C More Entertainment AB, and by the Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC);

| 3. | Orders the French Republic, EFADs, UPC and C More Entertainment AB to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission in relation to their interventions. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic, EFADs, UPC and C More Entertainment AB to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission in relation to their interventions.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

---
No. 64809.

#### House of Italian Handicrafts, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/32782(B) (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protest was dismissed.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 25, 2010

y0517 

# Order

May 25, 2010

140088

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140088 COA: 292345 Wayne CC: 05-011365-FC DESMOND MARTIN SHAW, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
**Proposed FY 2020 Changes to Transaction Codes (TCs) with References to the Central Accounting Reporting System (CARS):**

**1) Proposed Modification to TC Name to reference the CARS CTA Module.**

**A210**To record a transfer-out of financing sources and fund balance from Custodial Statement collections via the ~~Statement of Transactions (224).~~CARS CTA Module.

**Comment:**See USSGL TC C142.

**Budgetary Entry**

None

**Proprietary Entry**

Debit 599800 Custodial Collections Transferred Out to a Treasury Account Symbol

Other Than the General Fund of the U.S. Government

	Credit 101000 Fund Balance With Treasury

**Justification:**The CARS CTA Module is now the mechanism for CARS-Reporting federal agencies to reclassify transactions by TAS/BETC.

**2) Proposed Modification to TC Comments to reference the CARS CTA Module.**

**A250, A251, B150, B152, B154, C750, C751, C752, C753, C754, and C755.**

**Comment:**See Treasury Financial Manual, Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 3400, “Accounting for and Reporting on Cash and Investments Held Outside of the U.S. Treasury,” and Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 5100, “Fund Balance with Treasury Accounts” for additional guidance, such as ~~Statement of Transactions (224) transactions.~~ reclassifications in the CARS CTA module.

**Justification:**The CARS CTA Module is now the mechanism for CARS-Reporting federal agencies to reclassify transactions by TAS/BETC.

Page 1 of 1                               IRC Handout February 13, 2020
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report
of Westsphere Asset Corporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the
period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas MacDonald, Chief Executive Officer,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The
information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                           |                                                                                                                 
|-------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:   September 26, 2008 | By: /s/ Douglas Mac Donald
Name: Douglas Mac Donald
Title: Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ESTATE OF PERCY BREWINGTON : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

: No. 05-6016

JOSEPH LOMBARDO, et al. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21 day of July, 2009, “Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration st

of the Court’s September 15, 2008 Order, or in the Alternative, for Certification of that Order

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B)” (docket no. 37) is denied.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Edmund V. Ludwig 

Edmund V. Ludwig, J.

Case 2:05-cv-06016-TJR Document 44 Filed 07/22/09 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

EXHIBIT 11:


                                                                                   Year Ended November 30,

                                                           1992            1993           1994            1995            1996
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net Income for year                                    $29,094,668     $29,887,693    $31,420,899     $33,216,662     $34,445,147
                                                       ===========================================================================
<S>                                                    <C>             <C>            <C>             <C>             <C>       
Weighted average common shares outstanding              25,988,362      25,081,056     24,218,145      23,070,525      22,428,293

Dilutive common stock equivalents:
       Stock options, based on treasury stock
       method using average market price                    47,959          22,862         43,020         147,143         219,313
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total common and common equivalent shares
included in computation of primary and fully-diluted
earnings per share:                                     26,036,321      25,103,918     24,261,165      23,217,668      22,647,606
                                                       ===========================================================================

Earnings per share                                           $1.12           $1.19          $1.30           $1.43           $1.52
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


(A)    Fully-diluted earnings per share is not presented on face of statement of income since incremental
       dilution is less than 3%.

Prior year amounts have been restated to reflect the three-for-one stock split approved by the Board of
Directors on March 12, 1991.

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      23.1





CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





As
      independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
      report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration
      Statements on Form S-8 File Nos. 33-63816, 33-79360, 333-4634, 333-84471,
      333-103847 and 333-122181.





/s/
                Rotenberg and Co., LLPRotenberg
                and Co., LLP





Rochester,
      New York





November
      15, 2007





1